"By the way, is there a technical term in the lexicon of logical disputation for someone picking out and demolishing one small error in a long argument, and then walking away slapping the dust off their hands and acting as if they have won a "debate," and there's nothing more to say?"

Yes. Actually two words- democratis liberalis

This post makes me think of France. The French left has been mad the last few years because they've had to align with Chirac, first in the election in 2002 (the second-round alternative was Le Pen) and then in the Iraq war last year (where it was either him or Bush).

My perception of Josh Marshall is more that he's "I'm an insider and you're not."

Daily Kos or Atrios is more "Republicans bad. Democrats good."

john, by now you must have surely realized that the blogosphere--much like real world politics--is split between those who write & read in order to simply reaffirm whatever their beliefs are, & those who assert a set of principles & try, in good faith, to apply that set of principles to different issues. dialogue w/ the former is not only nearly impossible but also very self-defeating. we ought to pitch our arguments & observations to those willing to listen, not into the howling void.

i don't know who to credit on this one, but it's a good guiding principle, especially in the blogosphere:

"You cannot refute an irrational conviction w/ rational argumentation."

something to keep in mind, perhaps... it is frustrating, i'll admit to that, endlessly so, but this is how the world tends to work out.

I see it quite differently.

Many, if not most, conservatives tend to view issues in terms of black and white, right or wrong, yes or no, A or B.

The world doesn't work that way. Many issues are extremely more complex requiring equally complex solutions that are sometimes less than satisfying.

Consistency is also rather subjective. For example, merely saying you're opposed to the Taliban is half of the equation. How did the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan? Well, people there got pretty sick and tired of warlords looting and terrorizing them at every turn and turned to the only group willing to put an end to lawlessness. Of course, the Taliban brought its own set of problems.

Now, we've knocked the Taliban out of power for the time being. But look who's running the country again--the warlords. The cycle begins anew.

Conservatives are just as likely to appreciate life's complexities as leftists. Some do, some don't, just as in any human group. In fact, your grossly oversimplified statement about Conservatives is an instructive example of someone missing complexities

Where they are different is that Conservatives are more likely to make judgments as to what is right and wrong, better or worse. They try to avoid the mushy moral-equivalence that says the Taliban and the warlords are much the same thing. (And when you read what Afghans have to say, THEY clearly don't think so.)

And while warlords rule large chunks of Afghanistan, the central government is so far holding its own and even making some gains. That's another complexity you've overlooked.

NOBODY said Afghanistan was going to be easy. It may be impossible to fix. But conservatives and Republicans and our military are TRYING. WE have HOPE and dreams. You lefties sit on the sidelines and sneer and carp and contribute nothing. (That's MY oversimplification for the day. But I think there's a lot of truth in it. Perhaps you can provide some counter-examples to change my mind.)

WRT Afghanistan, the truth is Karzai's authority extends about as far as the room he is in. Basically, Kabul has a semblance of a governmental authority. The rest of the country is owned by various warlord factions or the Taliban.

There exists little difference between the Taliban and the warlords. One is fanatically rigid and dictatorial, the other is anarchic. The Taliban almost eliminated opium production during their tenure; the warlords have once again made Afghanistan the world's leading supplier of heroin. Choose your poison.

It didn't have to be this way; Bush promised a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan. That didn't come about because Bush decided to engage Iraq in a war of dubious rationale.

Sorry, but conservatives don't have ideas that extend beyond what can fit on a bumpersticker.

You say conservatives see things in black and white, and then procede to make your own gross oversimplifications and miss the subtlties of what people are saying. And you are blind to the irony of that.
Miss Gold, You lack the wittiness and courtesy that make for good conversation.
Please go somewhere else.

As for the complication thing, wasn't the whole point of Marx that everything is class? And don't gender feminists think everything is gender, while most other leftists are into "identity?" I don't think it gets much more simplistic than that.

As for the left's ability to make moral judgements, just don't be "intolerant," "insensitive," or one of the dreaded "-ists," and you're fine. The theory is that everyone should accept everything everyone does, but the practice is thought police, because some people just don't play nice. Oppose gay marriage, even some fairly intelligent ones, and you'll see lots of leftists making all sorts of moral judgements about you.

Harm, there's also a third major group- dense people. As for people who just want to be affirmed, I actually find the blogosphere a lot better than most places. Even if you're one of those bloggers who removes every dissenting post, you're just a few keystrokes away from seeing an opposing viewpoint, as much as places like Daily Kos may try to restrict it by their silly rating system.

As for Afghanistan, we are rebuilding it. We built the Ring Road, which goes around to all the major cities, such as they are, in the country. It's just a two-lane asphalt road, but now you can drive from Kabul to other cities in a regular car, which you couldn't do before. The point of the Marshall Plan was to rebuild Western Europe, but it's much easier to rebuild than to build for the first time.

If a person defines everyone on the other side of his political fence a simpleton, has he not also defined himself?

We need a new type of dialogue--a dialogue that starts from similarities and works toward differences, rather than the other way around. Our similarities are vastly greater than our differences, and the spirit of discourse would likely improve if we began with our commonality.